描述法律

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2020-02-01 DOI:10.1017/cjlj.2019.31

Raff Donelson

{"title":"描述法律","authors":"Raff Donelson","doi":"10.1017/cjlj.2019.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal philosophers make a number of bold, contentious claims about the nature of law. For instance, some claim that law necessarily involves coercion, while others disagree. Some claim that all law enjoys presumptive moral validity, while others disagree. We can see these claims in at least three, mutually exclusive ways: (1) We can see them as descriptions of law’s nature (descriptivism), (2) we can see them as expressing non-descriptive attitudes of the legal philosophers in question (expressivism), or (3) we can see them as practical claims about how we should view law or order our society (pragmatism). This paper argues that we should understand these claims in the pragmatist way, as claims about how we should view law or order society.","PeriodicalId":43817,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","volume":"33 1","pages":"85 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cjlj.2019.31","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Describing Law\",\"authors\":\"Raff Donelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cjlj.2019.31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Legal philosophers make a number of bold, contentious claims about the nature of law. For instance, some claim that law necessarily involves coercion, while others disagree. Some claim that all law enjoys presumptive moral validity, while others disagree. We can see these claims in at least three, mutually exclusive ways: (1) We can see them as descriptions of law’s nature (descriptivism), (2) we can see them as expressing non-descriptive attitudes of the legal philosophers in question (expressivism), or (3) we can see them as practical claims about how we should view law or order our society (pragmatism). This paper argues that we should understand these claims in the pragmatist way, as claims about how we should view law or order society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"85 - 106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cjlj.2019.31\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2019.31\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2019.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

摘要

法律哲学家对法律的本质提出了许多大胆而有争议的主张。例如，一些人声称法律必然涉及胁迫，而另一些人则不同意。一些人声称所有法律都享有推定的道德效力，而另一些人则不同意。我们可以用至少三种相互排斥的方式来看待这些主张：（1）我们可以将它们视为对法律本质的描述（描述性），（2）我们可以认为它们表达了相关法律哲学家的非描述性态度（表现主义），或（3）我们可以把它们视为关于我们应该如何看待法律或社会秩序的实际主张（实用主义）。本文认为，我们应该以实用主义的方式理解这些主张，即我们应该如何看待法律或秩序社会的主张。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Describing Law

Legal philosophers make a number of bold, contentious claims about the nature of law. For instance, some claim that law necessarily involves coercion, while others disagree. Some claim that all law enjoys presumptive moral validity, while others disagree. We can see these claims in at least three, mutually exclusive ways: (1) We can see them as descriptions of law’s nature (descriptivism), (2) we can see them as expressing non-descriptive attitudes of the legal philosophers in question (expressivism), or (3) we can see them as practical claims about how we should view law or order our society (pragmatism). This paper argues that we should understand these claims in the pragmatist way, as claims about how we should view law or order society.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence serves as a forum for special and general jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It publishes articles that address the nature of law, that engage in philosophical analysis or criticism of legal doctrine, that examine the form and nature of legal or judicial reasoning, that investigate issues concerning the ethical aspects of legal practice, and that study (from a philosophical perspective) concrete legal issues facing contemporary society. The journal does not use case notes, nor does it publish articles focussing on issues particular to the laws of a single nation. The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Western University.